JorgenCAB

Yes I tend to agree... having it scale wit habitable planers will screw with game pace, research and a bunch of other things. There are no mandatory rule that say all habitable planets need to be colonised. THe AI have to be taught how to mange it's approval and even abandon planets in worst case scenario and not just surrender to someone.

First of all they don't have crap move or range. My sensor boats about five to ten turns into the game has 6-8 move good range and 20-25 heX scanning range. The first one are slower but so are all other ships as well. This trivialise early scouting into a none issue. This is especially appearant if you have many AI or play on a smaller map. You can quickly grab all the good stuff before the AI. Sure... on harder difficulty the AI cheat to some extent, but that is another discussio

I wonder if certain people here actually build sensors on their stations... and if not you can wonder why? I'm not surprised they don't even know what math l'm talking about either. They simply don't seem to even grasp the concept of what l'm trying to convey to them.

[quote who="Nastytang" reply="152" id="3548807"] And who gets to say this I ask again???? Your math don`t proves anything other then you know algebra ConGratz on THAT!!! the sensors on the ships that are stack as you saying are doing a different job the the senors on the starbase do the ones on the starbase as stated are there for defense!! the ones on a sensor BOAT!!! are for long ran

Well... to be fair it might be kind of hard to model the first ship being more expensive, there can be many factors influencing this. The easiest way I think, in this particular case, is simply not to do it so you can enjoy a more satisfying game. I usually don't like those kinds of argument but sometimes that is your best option.

[quote who="MrStarTrek" reply="149" id="3548801"] They considered star base sensors broke when they found out sensors ships could be built. Spock says that is the only logical conclusion. [/quote] And the relevance on game balance in a computer game is...?!?

[quote who="Nastytang" reply="146" id="3548790"] OK I agree mods are good and cool !!! to make changes as stated!! The stAarbase sensors were never about how far it could see but see far enough to help with defense! The Sensors on the starbases are Not Broke either and when did starbases range was decidedly considered broke??? A who get to say want is brok

It can be nerfed through mods anyway, so you will have it eventually... ;) Mods usually make games better and some times even fix imbalances and changes play that cater to a different audience better, that is one of the good thing with mods. I'm just sad if they don't recognize how broken sensor ranges on stations really are...

When I played my first game I would immediately recognize the importance of the ideology buildings as something very important as a long term investment. Anything that give you points over time is better to get now rather than later in most cases. So I really think this will have more to do with you as a person than the choices being unintuitive or not. I"m not saying everything in this game are crystal clear though... ;) I did go for the industri

[quote who="MrStarTrek" reply="127" id="3548472"] I answered you in more than one reply. you reject the answer. I use star bases to increase my combat ships travel range of my Civ, I don't pack sensors on ships I use for combat. Star bases ranges do not provide enough range. Star base ranges are not a viable option when your are exploring the galaxy on bigger map you need to know what is out there far out of range of your star bases. A few survey ships

I would propose two changes to make station a bit more competitive as military outposts. The sensor module could increase the influence of a Military base with one tile per sensor module and the sensors on the stations are at least tripled. Ships get a diminishing return on sensor stacking to reduce their sensor range somewhat, perhaps about half as much as now for the more extreme versions while retaining the shorter ones. This would at least mak

No, there is a sliding progression from (I think) 75-100 approval where you go from +0 to +25% bonus to production on the planet. 50-75 is 0% and below 50 you gain negative percentage modifications to a planets total production output. **EDIT** According to the XML files people are content between 45-65% and you receive positive effects from 65-100 and negative from 45 and below. Can't be 100% sure though.

[quote who="joeball123" reply="123" id="3548419"] Quoting JorgenCAB, reply 122 Did you miss the fact that a tiny ship had better sensor range, was cheaper and maintenance free... that is better in ALL respect than using sensors on stations. So what? An AWACS is cheaper than an airfield and gen

[quote who="joeball123" reply="120" id="3548394"] Quoting JorgenCAB, reply 117 You now get a sensor platform that is cheaper, have better sensor performance AND is mobile?!? When exactly did surveillance become a primary function of a starbase? As far as I'm aware, surveillance has always

Not completely on topic but I think that planets should be able to sponsor several shipyards at the same time. You can already do this it just is very micromanagement heavy task to do. Take a world that has a tremendous amount of productions and build a couple of shipyards above them and then have them alternate sponsoring them and their incredible production gets stored in each one as you alternate and you can build several ships a turn with a single world. I have not

The easiest way of you like to mod in a diminishing return of sensors is to make each sensor a one per ship only. Then you can only place one of each category on a ship which essentially becomes a diminishing return of sensor strength. That and boosting the sensor strength of stations... pretty easy to do with a mod if you really like to. I have no doubt someone will make some kind of "realism" mod that make such a change in mechanics for both sensors and engines. It d

[quote who="econundrum1" reply="9" id="3548375"] I think it's not just about map size but also abundance of habitable planets. Generally I think they should add scaling factors to the penalty to account for number of habitable planets in the game. [/quote] This can actually be controlled by a bigger map having more relics that give you more percentages and tradeable resources giving you global extra morale, but only if percentages is added before the

I certainly understand the OP and issues with the AI low morale and caving in and surrender. This can have serious consequences on a game and obviously need to be looked at from a balance stand point, that much is obvious. I also think that percentage modifiers on morale need to be applied before the penalties of LEP, this would reduce the problem both the player and the AI are faced with and would make larger map scale better since you could more easily offset the pena

[quote who="joeball123" reply="115" id="3548354"] Quoting JorgenCAB, reply 110 Please elaborate on how sensors ARE or ARE NOT balanced between ships and stations in the current game, give me numbers and hard math please? I will provide you with numbers because you asked, but I will not endorse

[quote who="crimsonsun_2000" reply="114" id="3548322"] Let me start by saying I enjoy the larger map sizes and I like Sensor ships because scouts are just too inefficient when you've got so many star to explore it's highly frustrating and if you think micromanaging constructors is bad then doing so with 50 odd scouts that need manual routing for efficiency is a whole new ball game I assure you. However I sat back and though I know what would not only keep sensor

The current problem is that the game rewards micromanagement a little too much. Managing the slider is too effective versus relying on the projects which reduce micromanagement more. There are plenty of threads talking about this issue...

[quote who="MrStarTrek" reply="104" id="3548194"] Quoting JorgenCAB, reply 103 It is a similar problem... thus "hypothetical" Oh... and please give a serious answer to one of two options. 1. Why should there not be a good game balance between ship

It is a similar problem... thus "hypothetical" Oh... and please give a serious answer to one of two options. 1. Why should there not be a good game balance between ship and station sensors? 2. How do you balance ship and station sensors? With that I rest my case and turn the judgement over to Stardock development team to decide for themselves. As I said... I can live with restricting my

Then we are back to the "hypothetical" idea with the missile. If they added a second missile tech identical to the one we have with the only difference the new missiles do twice the damage. You would be OK with that because it is a choice whether you use it or not. Comon... you don't balance game feature like that... you simply don't.

[quote who="Franco fx" reply="89" id="3548136"] Quoting JorgenCAB, reply 86 I also have no problem simply ignore stacking sensors on my ships, the AI really don't do this anyway so I don't feel the need to. I always play with some kind of modded files so scoring is really of no interest to me, neither is multi-play